Tue Jan 2, 2007 6:47PM EST
See Comments (142)
Why is it that there's no such thing as an easy answer to a simple question when it comes to technology? Over the warm holiday weekend we had one of those "green" discussions, as I'm sure so many of you did. The questions posed were simple: Are the new LCD and plasma displays more energy efficient than old CRT screens? And, which is more energy efficient: plasma or LCD? (I'll cover this question in part II of my post.)
The answer depends on many things, including how you use your TV, when you bought it, and—most of all—how TV power consumption is measured today.
First, the question of new flat-screen TVs versus old cathode-ray TVs. Generally speaking, large-screen TVs consume more energy than the smaller-screened CRT-based TVs they replace. And most people are adding TVs. That is, they tend not to replace old TVs with new ones but add a second or third TV. And since TVs consume power even when they're not on, just adding a TV set or two can add dramatically to your power consumption.
A recent report by the BBC found that in the United Kingdom, plasma televisions, which it says are about 50 percent bigger than their cathode-ray-tube equivalents, "consume about four times more energy according to the government-funded Energy Saving Trust." And when looking at the carbon emissions from the power plants, the same group found that old-style TVs produce 100kg of climate-warming C02 per year, while larger, plasma screens will pump out 400kg from the plant. A recent report from Panasonic, makers of both LCD and plasma TVs, said that the new TVs consume more power than older CRTs, but the company is working to get the new TVs to be more energy efficient as fast as it possibly can.
Some of the best research can be found at EfficientProducts.org. The site says that a typical U.S. household watches about five hours of television each day and that there are about 260 million TVs in our homes. They claim that our TVs are responsible for about 1 percent of our nation's electricity production a year (47 billion kilowatt hours). Most of this electricity is consumed when the TV is turned on (90 percent), but the remaining 10 percent is used in standby modes when the set has been turned off. It predicts that unless TV efficiency improves, the rapid growth in TV sales, increased hours of TV viewing, and multiple TVs per household will ultimately contribute to a rise in TV energy consumption by about 50 percent before 2010.
OK, so much for new TVs replacing cathode tubes. It seems the new TVs consume more power. Now what about the different types of flat screens? Do you know which consumes more power? LCD or plasma? Keep reading to find out.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
I would be interested to know how equal sized flat screen and older tv's compare. It intrigues me that you compare the larger flat screen tv to smaller tube type. Why?
Environmental concern comes from a basic level of concern for your children and the future of your community and country. The science has been in for a while now, the consensus is big enough that even Bush can't ignore it. What the detractors on this site don't seem to get is, some people care more about children, community and country than about how well off they appear to be or how comfortable and warm their own selfish butt is. It's a different way of looking at life: a more constructive one. Detractors whine about it because it reveals and threatens their shortsighted and self-centered worldview.
Really? You think! First of all, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Seriously, it's like being suprised my SUV consumes more gas than my motorcycle. For a true comparison, make an 60" CRT TV and see how much energy that consumes.
Either I am not very good with math, or there are some contradictory statements in this article. How can they say: 'They claim that our TVs are responsible for about 1 percent of our nation's electricity production a year (47 billion kilowatt hours),' and then a few sentances later say: 'increased hours of TV viewing, and multiple TVs per household will ultimately contribute to a rise in TV energy consumption by about 50 percent before 2010.' Even if all TVs were replaced with those that consume 4 times the amount of energy, would that not only contribute to 4% of the increase? These kinds of reports are a racket and are simply meant to give people something to talk (or argue) about. If energy consumption goes up by 50% in the next three years, which sounds absolutely absurd to me, TVs will NOT be the reason.
i have a 37" lcd and i would not trade it for the world. if it does use a lot than my wife can get rid of her hair dryer and her eletric blanket
This is a poor comparison. Of course your going to use more power when you compare a crt at 26 inches to a plama at 52 inches. I am looking at my third large screen tv, the first two were projection tvs...and I replaced them, I am not adding them. So, if I get a new tv, the old one leaves. I know my brother is considering replacing his 54 inch tv with a new one and again the old one will leave the house. Even if someone is adding a large screen tv...the comparison is still a bad one because you do not watch two tvs at the same time...oh I know that there will be times when you want to watch one thing and the wife/husband/kids/roomate will want to watch something else but still it means you will only be running one at a time. So, for my money the question is is a crt tv more of less efficient than a plasma or lcd or dlp of the same size or not!
to much info, answer the question, then go into the tech stuff which i do not have time for
Thank you for the insightful article I have a total of 6 Television in my home and two in rooms that are hardly used except for when we have guest. Soon as I finished reading your article I unplugged them.
No wonder our PG&E bill shot up about $10 since we bought 42" Plasma.
Who cares about conserving energy? I'll tell you, the Liberal communiststs who are using "Chicken Little" tactics to destroy what's left of America and what made her great, Capitalism.
I've seen his dad and, trust me, 26" is huge.
posted by islander Why even comlpain about the cost...better picture better quality so you have to deal the cost of it.Life's too short to be complaining.
Who cares? We just need to get rid of the Dem eco-nazis and drill for oil. Wouldn't be in the middle east if they had not prevented drilling.
All this is good general advice but not meaningful to the average consumer unless it includes numbers. We cannot determine what choice to make unless we know how much we will save.
Having dealt with the infamous Energy Savings Trust in the past, I would question any "study" or report they might produce. Thay are, in fact, a govenment sponsored agency, and therefore must do something to justify their existance and protect their jobs. Quality or forward thinging does not seem to be one of their traits.
I really had no idea. This is great as I was seriously considering a post holiday purchase. Must reconsider due to the obvious additional expense involved. Thanks a bunch!
Take a breath folks. Environmental issues really are happening. But the thing everyone is missing here is... The article doesn't say not to buy a TV, or a bigger TV, or another TV. While I'll agree that attributing a massive consumption increase to TVs is ludicrous, take this for what it is... information. And if this helps make TV manufacturers make TVs more efficient, great. And if a few people unplug their unused TVs, great. Power is not an unlimited resource. So paying attention to how it gets used makes sense. That doesn't mean don't buy a TV. It means take note of what the impact is. And adjust when it makes sense... or make the people making this stuff adjust when it makes sense. Oh, BTW... name calling never convinces people that you're right. It only convinces them that you are either too ignorant or too lazy to actually make a point.
I don't think this article was well-written. The whole point was to compare flat TVs with tube-type TVs in terms of efficiency. But rather than comparing apples to apples, the author writes, "Generally speaking, large-screen TVs consume more energy than the smaller-screened CRT-based TVs they replace..." Does "large screen" mean non-CRT? There are some pretty large CRTs out there. What we really need to know is which type is most efficient for a given viewing area. We can guess for ourselves that a TV of any type with a 2 square mile viewing surface is going to use more energy than one with 2 square feet. Give us the usage/area, so we can truly compare. Later, the author says, "And since TVs consume power even when they're not on, just adding a TV set or two can add dramatically to your power consumption." This is pretty weak. Power consumption of most TVs in standby mode is typically only 2% to 4% of the running power - hardly a "dramatic" addition to one's utility bill. Granted, TVs in standby are using that power 24 hours a day, but still, it's not going to dramatically affect one's power bill, and it's irrelevant to the subject. It does not address the question of which type of TV is more efficient.
This article overcomplicates the whole question. It doesn't compare apples to apples. Instead of looking at kilowatt hours and carbon dioxide emmisions, just ask "How many Watts (power) does a 30 inch CRT use, how many does a 30 inch (the same size) LCD use, and how much does a 30 inch plasma use?" It is a simple question. You can probably just look on the back of the set and get the answer from the labels! This article has done nothing but make a simple question seem like an unanswerable controversy.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 Posted by donut44 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:46PM EDT Report Abuse
Part III is "When will the UK ban Plasma and LCD TV above 3 inches and ban the owning of more than 1."